MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521918479 · doi:10.37236/976

Matrix Partitions with Finitely Many Obstructions

2007· article· en· W1521918479 on OpenAlexaff
Tomás Feder, Pavol Hell, Wing Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsPartition (number theory)Matrix (chemical analysis)DiagonalCharacterization (materials science)Induced subgraphGraphFinite setBlock matrixDiscrete mathematicsDiagonal matrixEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each $m$ by $m$ symmetric matrix $M$ over $0, 1, *$, defines a partition problem, in which an input graph $G$ is to be partitioned into $m$ parts with adjacencies governed by $M$, in the sense that two distinct vertices in (possibly equal) parts $i$ and $j$ are adjacent if $M(i,j)=1$, and nonadjacent if $M(i,j)=0$. (The entry $*$ implies no restriction.) We ask which matrix partition problems admit a characterization by a finite set of forbidden induced subgraphs. We prove that matrices containing a certain two by two diagonal submatrix $S$ never have such characterizations. We then develop a recursive technique that allows us (with some extra effort) to verify that matrices without $S$ of size five or less always have a finite forbidden induced subgraph characterization. However, we exhibit a six by six matrix without $S$ which cannot be characterized by finitely many induced subgraphs. We also explore the connection between finite forbidden subgraph characterizations and related questions on the descriptive and computational complexity of matrix partition problems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207